Non Sequiturs

You:  "I don’t think same-sex unions should be endorsed by the government."

Friend:  "People said the same thing about interracial marriages."

You:  "So you think the government should approve of homosexual unions?"

Friend:  "Of course."

You:  "People said the same thing about slavery."

Comments

[Wanda Zippler]

This conversation is going into my personal notebook of things to remember.

[Amy]

I will remember that comment as well! When I had the same conversation with a friend who had just recently "come out of the closet" and felt like I should support this she accused me of damaging my son and likened me to HITLER! ahem

[Mo]

SCORE!!

[alan aronson]

Slavery denied some due process and equal protection of the law.

Those who oppose same sex unions would do the same to others.

[Wanda Zippler]

Don't people who liken everyone that disagrees with them to Hitler get so tiring? Unless the person being referred to is murdering innocent woman and children by the score it is such a vile comparison.
Hitler was more than a disagreeable person
he was a type of anti-christ. To be kept totally separate from people we can't totally endorse but we can still love.

[Heath Griner]

Great response. I dialogue often with people who think a coherent argument is, "People said the same thing about interracial marriages." No matter what you say in response, they jump to something else -- usually the Crusades -- to try to put you on the defense. They are like the Athenians that Paul debated in Acts 17 -- all rhetoric, no Truth to stand on.

[dewayneward@hotmail.com]

Amy,

I too would like to understand why we should be asked to "support" something that we disagree with. People always tell me that I should just "get along", then they get mad when I tell them that if they want to get along, then they should just agree with me......

When I have heard folks tell me that I should be supportive, etc. of an immoral lifestyle (i.e. homosexuality, "hookin' up, etc.) I ask them if I should be supportive of a friend that beats his wife and sexually abuses his kids....you know, to get along.

And just to prove the point so this just isnt about sex, should I also be supportive of my friend that lies, cheats, steals,....again, just to get along.

People at my job love to throw the word Hitler around to describe anyone that disagrees with them (about has much as they enjoy saying "Jesus Christ" or "God Damn it" ----although I am forbidden to even have a closed bible (flipped over no less) on my desk as that is promting religion). Better stop, before I go off on a tange.... oops, too late.

I just find it odd that EVERYONE that disagrees with the conservative has come up with the same way to put the person down, (i.e. calling them Hitler). You'd almost think that they were getting it from somewhere....Nah!!

[Matthew O'Ryan]

Why only women and children, Wanda? Doesn't the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of civilian men he killed have any worth?

There obviously should be a distinction between civilian and military personnel. But in this instance, what purpose does gender qualifiers serve? A life is a life.

[Brad]

Alan,

Just a quick thought. Due process means that the government treats all citizens fairly and respects all of their legal rights. Who here is denying homosexuals that right? Certainly not Amy or many of the Christians I know. The logic is that as an American with my own set of rights, I have the right to think for myself and form opinions about the world around me. In consistency with what homosexuality is what the Bible has to say about it, we believe it is wrong and will act and vote accordingly. Also, from a state or federal perspective, (as a good citizen) I recognize that homosexuality lends nothing to the country as far as natural births or stable families so I believe they ought not be allowed to have an equal footing with traditional families that DO add to the populace and do have a far better chance at being a stable and fine environment for raising the next wave of solid citizens. In all of this I have not restricted a homosexuals right to due process. I am simply exercising my right as a citizen of the united states. If you have a problem with that, then why not advocate for people who have inclinations to murder since to restrict them and make laws that restrict murderous behavior is denying them due process.....?

[Wanda Zippler]

Matthew, You are right of course, it is just that when you throw men into the mix it is much easier to muddy up the conversation with other topics. Even in today's society I don't think you will find a man who will admit to sending his wife downstairs to check out the strange noise in the middle of the night. Woman and children are viewed as defenseless, and even though a human is a human it is considered a greater evil to hurt someone who can't hurt you, and woman and children fit that bill better than many men do.

I know not all woman and children are defenseless, my daughter passed her hunter safety course at 9 years of age, but that almost always suprises people. Few (atleast in my area) would be suprised to find that out if I had a son, and no one would be suprised if I told them my husband had passed a hunter safety course.

[alan aronson]

"If you have a problem with that, then why not advocate for people who have inclinations to murder since to restrict them and make laws that restrict murderous behavior is denying them due process.....?"

Hi Brad, sorry but there is a whole string of Supreme Court decisions, from Griswold to Lawrence, that make your analogy off point.

You are free to believe same sex unions wrong; that belief doesn't entitle you to use the state to enforce those beliefs. Same sex unions produce children and accumulate property, they pay taxes and they face the exact same situations that confront opposite sex couples. Under our Constitution that should entitle them to the same access to the law as those opposite sex couples.

It is unfortunate that the Nazi thing has been dragged into all this. Christianist, fundamentalist, Nazi, fascist, authoritarian, and totalitarian are all separate terms and shouldn't be confused.

That many Christian fundamentalists have strayed into Christianist advocacy and have too often supported a political party that is increasingly fascist and authoritarian and an administration that has been more than willing to employ the techniques and facilities of the totalitarian and now (thankfully) defunct Soviet Union, doesn't necessarily mean that they are Nazis.

[Timbo]

"Same sex unions produce children...."

Um....

[alan aronson]

Hi Timbo, if you would prefer "involve", that's fine too. The reality is that some same sex relationships lead to children who otherwise wouldn't have existed, however I have no problem with a term that you might find more descriptive. My point is that being a parent takes one into the realm of family law and it is only fair that those laws be equally applied.

[Robert Kunda]

"Slavery denied some due process and equal protection of the law.
Those who oppose same sex unions would do the same to others.
"

Alan,

To be accurate and more careful in thinking would be to see a distinction. Slavery denied people of a certain complexion the ability to do that which lighter skinned people could do: live freely.

The prohibition of same-sex marriage is not at all comparable. As for as equal protection goes, it is not a violation. Homosexual people can get married just as heterosexual people can. Both categories are bound by the exact same restrictions, namely, marry someone of the opposite sex. No one asks "Are you gay" before granting a marriage license, and should someone volunteer the information, it would not hamper the attempt.

Homosexual couple are also not prohibited from doing things that anyone else is, either. They can live together, they can do any manner of sexual acts, they can visit each other in hospitals, they can leave each other property in wills, they can own property together, etc.

What they do lack in same-sex marriages (or lack of) is the endorsement of the government for a particular lifestyle. Mainly, they do not get a tax break. Neither do unmarried heterosexual couples that live together, yet they are never characterized as having their "rights" violated. Marriage as administered by the government is an incentive program that requires certain guidelines be met, just as every other incentive program.

[alan aronson]

"What they do lack in same-sex marriages (or lack of) is the endorsement of the government for a particular lifestyle."

"Homosexual couple are also not prohibited from doing things that anyone else is, either. They can live together, they can do any manner of sexual acts, they can visit each other in hospitals, they can leave each other property in wills, they can own property together, etc."

Hi Robert, not really for some of the above and not so easily. Marriage automatically brings with it a host of benefits and presumptions that are not easily or as well duplicated. Blood relatives can challenge contractual and testamentary matters with a non-spouse with an ease that doesn't exist within a marriage because of the presumptions that the law gives marriage, ditto for issues involving parenting. That a same sex couple has to employ an attorney in order to achieve a faint shadow of the benefits that come with a marriage license even though they face the same situations is at the heart of the matter.

You turn the matter on its head. The law is for people not people for the law. If changes in the culture require changes in the law then that is the way things should be. The reality is, as you point out, that it is perfectly legal that folks form these relationships. The very nature of the relationships so formed leads to circumstances that fall within the boundaries of existing law. To deny one class of people access to the law requires the strictest scrutiny. The only reasons given for this denial are personal religious beliefs, personal tastes, and vague notions of what constitutes "approval" by the state. These reasons simply don't meet the Constitutional bar.

[Mike Westfall]

> You are free to believe same sex
> unions wrong; that belief doesn't
> entitle you to use the state to
> enforce those beliefs.

Um.. why not? How do any laws get passed if we are not entitled to use the state to enforce beliefs?

I'd say you're wrong here.

We believe murder is wrong. We use the state to enforce it.

Enough people believe smoking in grocery stores in wrong. The state enforces it.

You can assert that I'm not entitled to participate in government, but that doesn't make it so.

On some issues, I might even have the audacity to ask our government to amend our constitution, given certain court rulings. And that's my right. Oh, my!

[alan aronson]

"Um.. why not? How do any laws get passed if we are not entitled to use the state to enforce beliefs?"

Because that's not what our constitutional republic is about. There needs to be real reasons before we start passing laws, not mere belief.

For some reason this keeps going back to murder, so OK, let's go there. We know from history and experience that societies in which murder is rampant, civil society is impossible. Read Hobbes and Locke; do a few thought experiments.

It takes more to justify criminalizing something then mere beliefs and just-so stories. If something is legal then the folks involved in that something are entitled to due process and equal protection under the law if the circumstances arise that fall under those laws.

You mention smoking. these are infractions. I don't care what Rob Reiner believes; do you think a law that made smoking in a public place a felony would happen? That if it did, It would pass judicial scrutiny?

You, of course, have the right to seek to destroy our Republic by peaceful means. Why you would want to do that is beyond me but it is what it is, I guess.

[bc]

"You, of course, have the right to seek to destroy our Republic by peaceful means. Why you would want to do that is beyond me but it is what it is, I guess."

Talk about non-sequiturs, wow. I think Alan just said that our Republic will be destroyed if we don't amend law to allow for homosexual marriage.

"The law is for people not people for the law."

This one's a good point. Even biblical! It's what you drew from it that's flawed:

"If changes in the culture require changes in the law then that is the way things should be."

I just don't know about this one, Alan. So what if we Americans as a culture took a liking to pedophilia and wanted to lower the age for consentual for sex to 12? On what grounds would you find fault with this? Sure, 18 has been considered the legal age for adulthood for quite some time, but there can be no stare decisis when culture determines law on a whim.

Would pedophilia be wrong simply because most people didn't agree with it? Most people in the US don't agree with homosexual marriage either, but here we have a vocal minority pushing for legislation. What if 100 years from now the same push happens for a lowered age on consentual sex? On what grounds would you dissent?

[Wanda Zippler]

Unforunately we don't have to wait 100 years for people to try to lower the age of consent The North American Man/Boy Love Association is alive and well today and must be fought.

[alan aronson]

"Talk about non-sequiturs, wow. I think Alan just said that our Republic will be destroyed if we don't amend law to allow for homosexual marriage."

No, I believe our friend Mike wrote, "On some issues, I might even have the audacity to ask our government to amend our constitution, given certain court rulings. And that's my right. Oh, my!", and I was responding to that. Perhaps I'm wrong but my spidy sense tells me that any constitutional changes that Mike would favor would not be in the direction of liberty and good governance.

Moving on, we leave murder and venture into pedophilia. Guys, this stuff only plays well to uncritical audiences. Do you really believe that quiet, law-abiding, tax-paying lesbian couple down the block have anything in common with murderers or child molesters? do you believe one makes a serious argument by coming up with off-the-wall proposals and then acting as if they would be the most natural thing in the world to do unless the addressee can come up with reasons not to do them?

We protect minors and punish murder because that is what a civil society does. If you have a good argument for lowering the age of consent to 12, be my guest. I can assure that we are not about to change that law based on your "why not".

We get these silly analogies to murder, pedophilia, and slavery because you all haven't any good reasons to deny your fellow citizens the equal protection of the law.

I must digress here. I am listening to Hugh Hewitt and, to quote Conan the Barbarian, "my enemy's cries of pain are music to my ears."

[Brad]

I am sorry Alan, but you make some fatal mistakes in your argumentation.

1)You say I cannot use the state to pass laws I think are right. Yet do you not use the state to pass laws that you think are "right? No matter that you would probably adhere from a strict social constructivist camp and I from a Biblical one. We both are trying to get legislation passed that lines up with our beliefs. It seems to me you are planted firmly in the "tolerance" area where tolerance means agreement with you and those who do not agree are not tolerated.

2) Again, your belief that ultimately Christians are wishful thinkers and not careful thinkers with very good reasons to believe our view is correct, is in full view here. For myself, I am not advocating a Christian theocracy in America. Not everyone is Christian and they ought not be made to bow their knee to a God they do not necessarily believe in. But that said, we all have the right in this country to vote our conscience and to vote how we think is best for our country. Plus, from a strictly society mindset, I would not vote for homosexual unions just due to the high risk of pedophilia etc. And before you spout that I have no idea what I am talking about, go check out NAMBLA and such associations or go stroll through the local bookstore. The books and push is there. And I do not think it is healthy or safe for our kids.

Brad

Alan,

Is there some compelling new information not available 15 years ago that now validates same sex marriages?

[Francis Beckwith]

"Slavery denied some due process and equal protection of the law.

Those who oppose same sex unions would do the same to others."

Absolutely false, Alan. Every marriage law is the result of due process, the legislative process. If anything, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court violated that due process by capriciously forcing on the state its own philosophical anthropology without public debate or discussion. Remember that soon after this opinion, Catholic Charities was forced to allow gay couples to adopt. So much for "tolerance."

As for equal protection, any marital arrangement allowed by the state excludes those who do not participate, either because of legal restrictions, choice or lot in life. If same-sex marriage becomes law, then polygamists will be denied "equal protection." But if they are allowed, then those who want to marry close relatives will be excluded. But once they are allowed, then those who are single and have children out of wedlock will complain, "Why should `marriage' have any privileged status at all?" And the life-time celebates who have platonic relationships will want to get in on the action. So, at the end, "equal protection" means the dissolution of marriage. If any distinctions are considered "arbitrary," then nothing survives. This is what has happened in the Scandinavian countries.

Marriage has always been about children and the complementarity of gender. Once we become skeptics about those first things, then the adult self and his/her needs become all-important. That is the age in which we now live. God help us.

[Mike Westfall]

> There needs to be real reasons
> before we start passing laws,
> not mere belief.

I see. Those of us who think same-sex "marriage" ought not be sanctioned by the state only possess a nebulous mere belief that "it's just wrong," while you, with the superior rational faculty, have actual "reasons" for why it ought to be otherwise.

Our reasons for opposing same-sex unions have been stated clearly many times. Let's have a discussion of the merits of the arguments, whaddyasay? But you'd rather pretend we have no argument at all, so that you can accuse us of acting on "mere beliefs," in an apparent attempt to disenfranchise those with whom you disagree from participating in public policy.

> If something is legal then the
> folks involved in that something
> are entitled to due process and
> equal protection under the law
> if the circumstances arise that
> fall under those laws.

And, so? Who's disagreeing with that? You beg the question here. We're not talking about whether we should allow due process to law-abiding citizens. We all agree that we should. It's whether the "something" is legal (or ought to be) that we are discussing.

[Mo]

"I see. Those of us who think same-sex "marriage" ought not be sanctioned by the state only possess a nebulous mere belief that "it's just wrong," while you, with the superior rational faculty, have actual "reasons" for why it ought to be otherwise."

Now you've got it, Mike!

(Trust me, I've been through enough of these types of conversations to know that no amount of reasoning and actual discussing of points will change the minds of those who think this way. It's all about feelings for them.)

[Aaron Snell]

I'd just like to point out that, as far as I know, no one's dealt with the actual point of Greg's post, which has much more to do with logical structures than the content of the example. The supporting argument for the claim that the government should endorse same-sex marriage is clearly fallacious (non sequitur), as the response is meant to demonstrate.

[alan aronson]

Hi Aaron, Greg's point is a distraction from the real issue although an understandable one considering the place from whence you all come.

On the one hand it is not the business of the government to approve or disapprove of the natural and lawful associations into which its citizens may enter.

On the other hand such associations, though they be freely or naturally entered into, will from time to time create situations that of necessity involve the state.

This gets us to due process and equal protection and Dr Beckwith's comments. Due process in this case doesn't involve the legislative passing of a law. It does come into play when laws are enforced against individuals. The Massachusetts decision was that state's Supreme Judicial Court ruling on a state law in the light of that state's constitution. One may not like the decision or one may not approve of judicial review in general but those are other matters. We may also note that attempts to change the Massachusetts' Constitution have since failed and, in the words of one of the legislators who led the fight against same sex marriage, "Gay marriage has begun, and life has not changed for the citizens of the commonwealth, with the exception of those who can now marry."

I find the position on adoption curious. Children not adopted will remain in the foster care system until they turn 18 at which point they likely will find themselves (too often literally) on the street. This shouldn't be about "tolerating" the mindless scruples of those who run adoption agencies.

Equal protection of the laws involves those who "fit" the referent laws not those who don't. If one doesn't have a partner then it should be obvious that those sections of the family code that apply to those with partners don't apply to ones situation. the issue comes into play when the circumstances confronting those who have formed partnerships are identical save for the gender makeup of some of the partnerships.

Dr. Beckwith further confuses things by conflating unrelated categories in a causal chain and failing to consider the appropriate standard of review in changes to each category.

States regulate access to marriage by gender, age, capacity, degree of consanguinity, and number. Viewed in this manner, it is obvious that changes in any one category are, by their very nature, independent of the standards set in other categories.

For example, the states vary on allowing first cousins to marry; in California they may and in Idaho they may not. Regardless of ones opinion on cousin marriage, one thing is indisputable, there is no movement in California to allow father-daughter marriage.

These categories are facially unrelated and we need more than blue sky speculation and mere assertions to link them into some sort of grand slippery slope scheme.

The categories also involve different levels of judicial scrutiny. While the gender distinction failed even the rational basis test in the Massachusetts case, it is my opinion that in matters of gender and privacy stricter standards should be applied.

On the other hand, age distinctions are going to be, within a certain range, wholly arbitrary, and need only rational basis scrutiny.

I would like to see the briefs on issues of number.

"Marriage has always been about children and the complementarity of gender. Once we become skeptics about those first things, then the adult self and his/her needs become all-important."

Same sex marriage would be a positive benefit to those with children, so i don't understand the point here.

Selfish people are going to be selfish regardless of their preference in partners.

Scandinavia seems to be doing just fine.

I understand that most of you believe that marriage and the family was instituted by God and for Catholics like Dr. Beckwith, marriage rises to the level of a sacrament. Still those are matters of belief and sentiment that simply to do justify denying others access to the civil law. There are reasons why we are were founded as a secular state.

On another matter, I need to deal with this NAMBLA thing. I detect rank bigotry here, and I won't tolerate it. People who are born with things in common have a right to associate with each other and advance their interests. We all know where this goes. Never forget if we stand meekly by while folks who look like Marlon Brando are persecuted, what will happen when they come for the Elvis impersonators?

[Brad]

You won't tolerate it Alan? My, how intolerant of you!

And if I am thinking correctly, you have no choice but to allow me to vote my beliefs and to see NAMBLA as a threat to children. It was America the last time I checked and not an Aronson-run dictatorship lol.

Heaben forbid!

Brad

[Timbo]

"I need to deal with this NAMBLA thing. I detect rank bigotry here, and I won't tolerate it."

But the thing is, many people detect rank pedophilia when it comes to NAMBLA, and we won't tolerate that!

[Aaron Snell]

>>Hi Aaron, Greg's point is a distraction from the real issue although an understandable one considering the place from whence you all come.

Sorry Alan, this is STR's blog and the issue at hand is whatever the post is about. Greg does this (pointing out bad arguments) quite frequently, often criticizing arguments in favor of his own positions. The goal here seems to be to recognize bad argumentation and to illustate a clever way to point that out to one's interlocutor.

[zzx375]

Alan,

Is there some compelling new information not available 15 years ago that now validates same sex marriages and if it exists, can you please share with the rest of us?

[Francis Beckwith]

"States regulate access to marriage by gender, age, capacity, degree of consanguinity, and number. Viewed in this manner, it is obvious that changes in any one category are, by their very nature, independent of the standards set in other categories."

Exactly. Couldn't have said it better myself.

"I find the position on adoption curious. Children not adopted will remain in the foster care system until they turn 18 at which point they likely will find themselves (too often literally) on the street. This shouldn't be about `tolerating' the mindless scruples of those who run adoption agencies."

Perhaps we should then take children away from parents who embrace these "mindless scruples" and place them in the homes of gay couples? After all, if adoption agencies that believe that embrace a Christian philosophical anthropology are "mindless" and thus not qualified to place children in certain homes, then those homes, peopled by mindless parents, should be cleansed as well.

This is tolerance wearing a pink brown shirt.

[Mike Westfall]

> This shouldn't be about
> "tolerating" the mindless scruples
> of those who run adoption
> agencies.

Wow.
First it's our mindless beliefs, now it's our mindless scruples that need no toleration.

Again, your apparently superior rationality seems to have convinced you that those with whom you disagree ought to recuse themselves from participation in public policy.

Is that about it?

[alan aronson]

Hi Dr. Beckwith, if you agree with me why the slippery slope laundry list? Anyway, glad you agree that changes in gender requirements won't mean a slide down the slippery slope for marriage.

Why do you distort my point on adoption? The issue here is simple. If the choice is between singles and same sex couples adopting children or those children remaining in the foster care system, why is it better that they remain in the foster care system? Don't make up nonsense about taking children from their parents; tell me why you would deprive other children of parents of their own? And yes Mike, I believe needlessly keeping children in the foster care system is mindless and cruel. Why do you believe otherwise?

Hi Aaron, of course Greg is free to propose analogies that miss the mark. It is still the case that couching issues involving due process and equal protection in terms that revolve around approval and acceptance based on theological criteria is a poor way to approach public policy.

How is denying folks equal protection of the laws based on your assessment of their moral standing justified?

Hi zzx, the point isn't relevant. "Valid" isn't the issue for gay marriage and in a world of celebutards like Brittany and Kevin, I don't think we really want to go there. These relationships exist regardless of your approval; that is all that should matter.

The case is simple. There is nothing in our law that forbids the formation of same sex relationships. These folks are human so they will accumulate property, bring children into the relationship and find themselves in situations involving health care and the like. In other words they will be in exactly the same situations as opposite sex couples find themselves. Their commitment to each other and the situations they face are similiar; they are citizens and there is a body of well developed law to which they are, in most jurisdictions, denied access. I have yet to see even a rational basis for this denial.

(begin rant)
BTW, I don't understand the constant use of the "T" word. Outside the Lockean sense of the word, I'm not a tolerant person; allusions to toleration are wasted on me. No one who knows me has ever said I was tolerant and the last seven years of incompetence and mendacity certainly haven't made me more tolerant. Nothing like seeing your country turned over to fools, crooks, and liars in a judicial coup to create a spirit of toleration.
(end rant)

Oh, and are Amy and I the only folks who watch Southpark?

[Brad]

Alan,

You act like no making policy based on religious beliefs is not valid. But unfortunately you cannot escape that your beliefs are also based on a religious stance: (i.e. that religious views are not substantial enough factors to influence our choices when exercising public policy rights). You are exercising your beliefs that religion is ultimately devoid of meaning, and I woud not ever take that right away from you. But in my humble opinion, voting to save babies from abortion, to keep families as they were in the past etc. are crucial issues that my religious beliefs inform me are vital to vote a certain way.

One thing Alan, and I ask this honestly. Have you ever seen even one comment here tha made you think that "hey, I was wrong on that one, they make a good point that trumps mine"? I have never seen you once admit that we might have an idea or comment that actually shows you to have a wrong position. Because of this, don't you think you are a bit arrogant since you seem to think you are never wrong at all?

[alan aronson]

Hi Brad, my point isn't that you don't have a right to use religious beliefs to inform public policy or even that it is always a bad way to do policy. My general point is this; Religious dogma (as well as non-religious ideology) when unbalanced by broader secular considerations almost always will lead to bad (sometimes very bad) policy. This is as true for policy that we would consider as coming from the left as it is for policy coming from the right.

"...voting...to keep families as they were in the past..." This is a good example. What in the world does that mean? Do you want to go back to coverature? Do you mean "families" or do you mean "marriage"? You can't stop people from forming families. Focusing on your beliefs (and what seems to be a general obsession with the notion of "approval") to the exclusion of other considerations has caused you to miss important issues.

I almost totally disagree with Mark Steyn but he is currently a victim of the sort of thinking that results from considering public policy in a theological and ideological vacuum.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/12/in_defense_of_free_speechand_m.html

Please explain how your thinking towards same sex unions is informed differently than the thinking of too many Muslims towards the Danish cartoonists.

I don't hold that religious considerations are invalid per se when forming public policy; only that republican virtue and the rule of law compels us to additional considerations that may well trump mere dogma.

BTW, consider the adoption issue from above. Same-sex relationships are legal, though they may well be sinful, a point I will grant for the sake of this discussion. Both same-sex and opposite-sex couples are capable of being good or bad parents (also I would treat a desire to adopt as indicative of a person who at least wants to be a good parent). I will also assume that we can agree that opposite-sex couples are also sinners and that there may well be aspects of their relationship that are sinful. All that means as far as I can see is that we have sinners seeking to adopt. If only sin is the consideration, no one could adopt. The only possible justification for singling out same-sex couples is solid evidence that such relationships are inherently harmful to children and no such evidence exists. We also have to consider the inherent disadvantages that come with not having a family.

All I am saying is that it migh be useful to consider things more fully.

"One thing Alan, and I ask this honestly. Have you ever seen even one comment here tha made you think that "hey, I was wrong on that one, they make a good point that trumps mine"?"

Fair question and that leads me from the general to the specific. The short (on possibly incomplete consideration) answer is no. A longer answer is that "no" is an artifact of time and place and I have hopes of that changing as evangelicals stop being running dogs for the money-cons/neo-cons who run the Republican Party and assert themselves in a more well rounded (and IMHO Christian) manner.

If Obama and Huckabee wind up being the prevailing candidates, we will have two committed Christians with two very different political orientations facing each other. It was clear from listening to both over the past few days that they both understand the problems facing regular folks in a way that the elite media and their often anointed candidates never will.

That should be very interesting.

[Brad]

Hey Alan,

Thank you for answering my questions honestly. I appreciate it!

As odd as it may seem, I agreed with some of you points above but regardless of our disagreements, I will say that the issues are much more complex sometimes than most people make them. You certainly cannot just boil them down to one point and expect that one point to carry the day ideologically....at least when given to close scrutiny lol.

Anyway, thanks for the dialogue!

Brad

[zzx375]

>>Hi zzx, the point isn't relevant. "Valid" isn't the issue for gay marriage and in a world of celebutards like Brittany and Kevin, I don't think we really want to go there. These relationships exist regardless of your approval; that is all that should matter.

Hi Alan,

Thank you for the dismissal.

It isn't my approval being sought it is governmental approval in the form of a marriage license.

Kevin and Brittany have what bearing on the prioe of a barrel of crude oil on NYMEX or my question? Are you truly stating that their situation validates your position?

We don't really want to go where or is it that you cannot supply any new informaton?

[Alvin]

Let all this outcry serve as proof that the issue of same-sex marriage is greatly disputed because of what the nonsequitur evidences: law, morality, and public opinion do not always coincide. What is legal is not always moral and in any case that same thing might not be popular.

My opinion on the details for another time.

[alan aronson]

"It isn't my approval being sought it is governmental approval in the form of a marriage license."

Hi zzx, this is precisely why I consider social conservatism to be a cancer on the body politic - it seems to lead to an authoritarian, or even totalitarian mindset. Why do you not find the very notion that it is the role of the government to "approve" of and "endorse" the lawful associations into which folks decide to enter? I may disapprove of a given kind of business but if that business is lawful, I do not have the right to use the power of the state to deny people who enter into those businesses access to the relevant legal protections available to other businesses of which I approve. What is wrong with the exercise of a self restraint that realizes the necessity of having reasons that rise above sentiment and prejudice and go beyond belief when using state power?

I mentioned B & K because I hoped some of you would reflect on things that actually devalue marriage as opposed to imaginary things.

The new information you want is perhaps that the law is there to meet the needs of people not to enforce Utopian notions as to how folks should live their lives.

[alan aronson]

Oops. This sentence should read:

"Why do you not find the very notion that it is the role of the government to "approve" of and "endorse" the lawful associations into which folks decide to enter repulsive?"

[zzx375@cox.net]

Alan,

When the sun goes down, you want the law regarding same sex marriage to change because 1)you've labeled the ongoing governmental position totalitarian (forget about any legal precedent) and 2)
some celebrity types have a failed marriage and those things that happen when marriages fail are splashed in the tabloids.

Government by whim is where we don't want to go.

[Aaron Snell]

>>Hi Aaron, of course Greg is free to propose analogies that miss the mark.

I'm sorry that you still don't get either the original post (*not* an analogy) or my point, Alan, but at this point I'll just drop it. You're seeing what you want to see it it, man, not what's really there. It's just a pity you dragged a lot of people with you on your rabbit trail (not that the issue in the rabbit trail isn't an important one, but it's still a rabbit trail).

[alan aronson]

"I'd just like to point out that, as far as I know, no one's dealt with the actual point of Greg's post, which has much more to do with logical structures than the content of the example. The supporting argument for the claim that the government should endorse same-sex marriage is clearly fallacious (non sequitur), as the response is meant to demonstrate."

Hi Aaron, your post is above and after another look I just don't get this obsession with endorsement as a concept. Perhaps you can help me out.

As a matter of fact i have been making equal protection and due process arguments and it happens that both Perez and Loving were decided on those issues. Approval, endorsement, etc. doesn't figure in; the basic rights of the individuals involved do.

Justice Tratnor wrote:

"The regulation of marriage is considered a proper function of the
state. It is well settled that a legislature may declare monogamy
to be the "law of social life under its dominion," even though such
a law might inhibit the free exercise of certain religious
practices. (Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 166 [25 L.Ed.
244]; Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333, 343 [10 S.Ct. 299, 33 L.Ed.
637].) If the miscegenation law under attack in the present
proceeding is directed at a social evil and employs a reasonable
means to prevent that evil, it is valid regardless of its
incidental effect upon the conduct of particular religious groups.
If, on the other hand, the law is discriminatory and irrational,
{Page 714} it unconstitutionally restricts not only religious
liberty but the liberty to marry as well."

Perez v. Sharp (Oct. 1, 1948) 32 Cal.2d 711

So far the only arguments advanced in this thread have been discriminatory and irrational (IMHO) and the Mass. Supreme Court was unable to find a rational basis under the Mass. constitution for gender based exclusions.

Mildred Loving has opined:

"Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about."

Hi zzx, unconstitutional and totalitarian are two different matters. Laws imposing gender limitations should be ruled unconstitutional. The culturally conservative notion that we need state endorsement and approval of our private relationships is totalitarian.

If you hold that the very public marital fiascoes of our celebutard class has no impact on how marriage is viewed then i assume that you would have to hold the same for same-sex marriage as most of those are well out of the public eye.

[William Wilcox]

Aaron said: "I'd just like to point out that, as far as I know, no one's dealt with the actual point of Greg's post, which has much more to do with logical structures than the content of the example."

I certainly agree. This tread is interesting but largely conducted off topic.

The failure of certain posters to recognise the point of the post while trying to argue for their particular positions on other issues is, I believe, unfortunate.

From Merriam -Webster On Line:

Main Entry: non se·qui·tur
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, it does not follow
Date: 1540
1: an inference that does not follow from the premises; specifically : a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent
2: a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said.

[alan aronson]

Hi William, as I assume that I am that "certain poster" or at least one of them, perhaps you can help me out. Aaron, please feel free to contribute.

How does a "proper" understanding of Greg's series of statements lead to a better understanding of the underlying issues.

Here is a neutral restatement of Greg's post:

You: "I don’t think voluntary relationship A should be allowed access to the benefits of our relevant civil laws."

Friend: "Most people believed that voluntary relationship B should be subject to criminal sanctions."

You: "So you think the government should allow voluntary relationship A the full protection of the relevant civil law?"

Friend: "Of course."

You: "Some people said the same thing about coerced relationship C. In addition, some people wished those who interfered in coerced relationship C to be subject to criminal sanctions"

The above is an accurate restatement. I went where I did because the original series of statements are incoherent when related in a factual manner.

[William wilcox]

Alan,

This is an exercise in logical thinking and logical fallacy. When looking for truth in dialog with others it is important to reason in a way that facilitates the effort.

Looking for snappy sound bite replies to statements concerning some topic is not the goal. Winning an argument should not be the goal. The specific topics used in Greg's post are not the issue. You could pick any issues of controversy to illustrate.

The subject is the fallacy of non sequitur. Greg's example illustrates that fallacious reasoning ultimately does not really help either side of an argument seeking truth and understanding of an issue.

This is, at least, how I understood the intent of the post.

It may be that your unease with the post is an intuitive understanding of the fallacy.

To me, this understanding of the way to pursue the truth is a gift given to us from God, available to all willing to accept it.

[Amy Hall]

>>The culturally conservative notion that we need state endorsement and approval of our private relationships is totalitarian.

Wait...what? Then why are you pushing for state endorsement and approval of same-sex marriage? (Not to mention state approval of whom we hire and fire and how much we pay them, state approval of what we contribute to campaigns, state approval of where we smoke, state approval of what we can pray in schools or display in public places, state approval of the health care employers provide, state approval of the lightbulbs we use, and on and on and on).

The fact is, the government doesn't prevent ANYONE from entering into a private relationship. No one. But it certainly does prevent us from doing many other things. I suppose you don't consider those other things totalitarian if you agree them.

[Sage S]

Yes, Amy. Marriage is a social institution (as well as religious) by which the state confers privileges and benefits to relationships which it alone can sanction. God grants spiritual blessings as only He can; so the state grants social privileges along its purview. This is not arbitrary, but is social, historical, religious (take it or leave it, marriage remains regardless), biological and cultural - the primary social unit.

Alan said "There needs to be real reasons before we start passing laws, not mere belief."

This is a distinction without a difference. Beliefs in reasons are not ungrounded abstractions, but channels through which we apprehend (or misconstrue) reality.

The burden of proof for altering thousands of years of established societal norms seems to lie entirely on the proponents of change - the same-sex union advocates. The American people must decide together whether the reasons reveal a right to marry of the same sex, or not. That is the question - do the laws of nature as recognized by the Constitution grant the inalienable right to marry inner-gender?

SSM advocates have to convice us of this based on reasons. So far, most are not persuaded.

[alan aronson]

Hi William, I understand your point I just find it hard to believe that the intent was a simple example in logical thinking. Besides, if you strip out the unclear thinking on the role of government and reflect on the reasoning behind Perez, Lawrence, and Loving, one of the statements falls apart. Miscegenation laws were upheld until they weren't and that is what I expect to happen with same-sex unions.

Hi Amy, allowing folks with whose lifestyles one disagrees access to the law is fundamental to the rule of law as we have come to understand it. We will simply disagree on that it appears. Acceptance of lawful activity isn't endorsement or approval, it is simply how a good society is ordered.

Again, stripping out the "approval" language as it relates to private associations and the government, your list is a conflation of various statutes with which I may agree with you, or not, with basic constitutional principles. Besides I am sure the blessings of liberty doesn't mean that I get to work in a union busting mine under unsafe conditions for 12 hours a day for bumpkus while my 10 year old son sorts coal on the conveyor and my 8 year old daughter changes bobbins at the mill only to come home to our hovel and meal of contaminated food and find out that my wife was killed in a fire at her job at the garment factory. There are good reasons for many of the laws to which you seem to object, unlike the lack of good reasons against same-sex unions.